Will the Supreme Court kill the newly born citizenship? It is the issue of history versus loyalty

president Donald Trump Ask supreme court To support an executive order in January ends the citizenship in the United States.

ArrangementAnd that would stop granting citizenship to immigrant children who are not documented and other non -employees born in the United States, laughed by a federal judge in that month. American boycott judge John Kognor described the new interpretation of the law “starkly unconstitutional” while issuing a temporary restriction in the Trump administration. Coughenour was one of three federal judges who had a policy stop.

the Emergency application From the Trump administration, it asks the Supreme Court to “restrict the scope” of the country to implement the order, citing justice Clarence Thomas The 2018 claim that comprehensive orders were “legal and historically doubtful”.

The lawyers of the Judicial Administration in the executive branch wrote: “Comprehensive orders have reached the dimensions of the epidemic since the start of the current administration,” in the hope that “the Supreme Court, controlled by the conservatives, will announce enough” enough “and verify the authority of the judiciary in executive care in the executive branch.

The court has proven that it is unexpected in Trump’s cases, where he cast several keys to the plans of the most clear administration. The concept of citizenship born to all persons born on American soil has much deeper roots than the 2025 project platform.

Coumentation is older than the United States

The officially born citizenship in the constitution has been recorded for more than 150 years, but the concept dates back to a long time before the establishment of the nation.

Virginia University professor, Amanda Frost, followed the foundations of the fourteenth amendment in Wright In an article For Yale Magazine for Law and Human Science last year.

“The principle of public law [of citizenship by birth] The Law of the Earth was mistakenly rejected by the Supreme Court in its decision in 1857 in the case of Duraid Scott against Sandford, who announced that no one of African, slave or free origin could be an American citizen.

The “Antbellum doctrine” of rights at birth was present in the laws of at least six northern states, and laid the foundation for post -war amendment. The laws that are not agreed upon on the issue of nationality were finally resolved after the abolition of slavery and the ratification of the fourteenth amendment.

Scotos has long supported the fourteenth amendment

The most reconstruction modifications, the fourteenth amendment led to the Dred Scott decision, which saw that black Americans have no right to obtain citizenship at birth. The amendment explicitly states that “all people born or manived in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of it are citizens in the United States,” and they have been detained to grant unconditional citizenship to those born on American soil since 1898.

That year, the US Supreme Court ruled against Wong Kim Arac that the American son born to Chinese citizens is entitled to obtain American citizenship despite the laws prohibiting Chinese individuals from the country.

For the majority, Judge Huras Gray rule The fourteenth amendment “confirms the old and essential ruling of citizenship by birth within the region … including all children born here from the resident foreigners,” explaining that Wong was a citizen.

The discovery of the Supreme Court has been the land law since then, with the expansion of Congress from time to time the scope of citizenship based on the court ruling. Legislative lawmakers were granted to all indigenous Americans in 1924, after the court ruled decades ago that people born in reservations of obtaining citizenship are not entitled.

“Either a crazy theory or a non -secure interpretation”

Experts agree that the fourteenth amendment text is clear, and that Trump’s interpretation does not pass. Harvard Gerald Newman’s Law Faculty of Law Faculty of Law of all people born in the United States in A. January interview With Harvard’s law today.

“The argument is either a crazy theory or an unremitting interpretation of the constitution,” Numan said, adding that the executive order was not sufficient to increase the constitutional law. “The president does not have the authority to change the base of citizenship at all … the advantages are clear. There is only one reasonable answer to this.”

Besides constitutional questions, state officials fear that change will create devastating logistical crises. Officials from at least 24 states signed a summary of the Amik to support the New Jersey Challenge to the executive matter last month, saying that the change would lead to administrative confusion … and the incomprehensible harm to individuals. ”

The exclusion of some American -born American children will create “a multi -generational category of people excluded from full rights.”

Gilated said: “The deprivation of people that the legal situation, even if they were born in the United States, will put people in a more vulnerable position, and economically weak.”

It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will surrender to the president’s marvelous interpretation, although the court recently ruled against the illegal administration of the Trump administration of two billion dollars in the foreign aid approved by Congress.

At least one expert believes that the judges will not go to this extent. The University of California Professor at Los Angeles Hiroshi Motomura, the salon last year, told the field of birth more holy than other rights that this court put on the cutting bloc.

“Although people say the court has become more conservative, this will be further in an attempt to cancel the past than we saw,” he said. “This goes beyond throwing the ROE V. Wade. I think this was a radical step, but this is not a comparison. This is a little more than rethinking what is going on around the country.”